The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced on Dec. 2, 2015 that Iran was actively designing a nuclear weapon until at least 2009—rebutting a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iran was no longer working to develop nuclear arms.

The IAEA report contradicted intelligence estimates and statements by the United States and other Western intelligence agencies that received considerable attention at the time from press and policymakers.

The New York Times notes that the report, based only “on partial answers Iran provided after reaching its nuclear accord with the West in July, concluded that Tehran conducted ‘computer modeling of a nuclear explosive device’ before 2004. It then resumed the efforts during President Bush’s second term and continued them into President Barack Obama’s first year in office (“Nuclear Agency Says Iran Worked on Weapons Design Until 2009,” Dec. 2, 2015).”

The Times reports that although the IAEA “found no evidence” that Iran had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon that “may have been because Iran refused to answer several essential questions, and appeared to have destroyed potential evidence in others.”

On December 15 the IAEA closed its investigation into Iran’s past nuclear weapons activities, a development noted in The Washington Post (“Nuclear probe on Iran is closed,” December 16) and The Baltimore Sun (“Nuclear weapons probe of Iran is closed by U.N.,” December 16), among other outlets.

The Post reported that the IAEA’s announcement occurred the same day as reports emerged of an internal U.N. report documenting that Iran had violated resolutions from the world bod by firing a missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on October 10.

The Sun’s coverage of the IAEA decision was delivered in a nine sentence news brief. Neither The Sun or The Post noted that the decision followed an investigation, which as The New York Times and an Associated Press story in The Los Angeles Times (“U.N. ends Iran nuclear inquiry; The move, part of a deal with six nations, leaves questions about suspected weapons work unanswered,” December 16), reported, faced Iranian obstinacy against providing investigators full cooperation.

None of the above mentioned papers noted that the IAEA conclusion countered a 2007 U.S. NIE that concluded Iran was no longer working to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is particularly surprising in the case of The Baltimore Sun, which as recently as July 21 (“No more ‘military option’”) ran a guest editorial by Ray McGovern that championed the merits of the 2007 NIE. McGovern, a former intelligence official and co-founder of fringe-group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), has routinely expounded conspiracy theories regarding the Iraq war and the Sept. 11, 2001 al-Qaeda terror attacks—some of which appear on a “9/11 truth” Web site.

The Sun has published at least eight editorials or letters to the editor by McGovern in the last three years alone, some alleging that Israel manipulates intelligence on Iranian nuclear ambitions (July 31, 2012 “Is Israel fixing the intel?”) and others blaming the U.S. for Russian imperialism (July 15, 2014, “When the U.S. welched on Shevardnadze”).

In a letter sent to The Sun on Aug., 4, 2015, CAMERA noted both McGovern’s history as an anti-Israel “truther” as well as problems with the 2007 NIE that he touted. CAMERA noted that among other issues, that NIE defined “nuclear weapons program” to exclude “Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment the fringe activist heralds.”

While questions remain about the extent of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, some media don’t seem interested in reporting them, even those who have previously offered editorial space to flog a since debunked intelligence assessment.

Many news media reports or commentaries have refuted the claim by Donald Trump, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, that “thousands and thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered the destruction of New York City’s World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. A Dave Ross commentary (KIRO, syndicated by CBS Radio in Seattle and aired in Washington D.C. on WTOP-FM) on November 24, discussed an Atlanta-Journal-Constitution article. It noted five Israelis were taken into custody in New Jersey after being reported “clowning around” with the World Trade Center burning across the Hudson River in the background.

What of claims Muslims celebrated the Twin Towers destruction?

In the U.S.

•Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Dec. 1, 2015 to CNN: “We had some pockets of celebrating.” Asked how many people he witnessed celebrating the attacks, he said, “Ten. Twelve. Thirty. Forty. We had one situation in which a candy store owned by a Muslim family was celebrating that day, right near a housing development. And the kids in the housing development came in and beat them up.”

However, Giuliani said that had there been “thousands and thousands” of people cheering as the twin towers fell—as Trump claimed—he would have known.

•“We had a number of reports of people celebrating. I remember Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. There were some in Queens. There were also some in Patterson, New Jersey and Jersey City.”—Bernard Kerik, former New York Police Commissioner speaking to One America News on Dec. 1, 2015

•Breitbart unearthed a local CBS News (WCBS-TV in New York, Sept. 16, 2001) that also discusses Muslims celebrating in Patterson, New Jersey, subsequently investigated by the FBI, with eight individuals detained:

“Just a couple of blocks away from that Jersey City apartment the F.B.I. raided yesterday and had evidence removed, there is another apartment building, one that investigators told me, quote, was swarming with suspects — suspects who I’m told were cheering on the roof when they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center. Police were called to the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them tenants in the building.

The F.B.I. and other terrorist task force agencies arrived, and the older investigators on the task force recalled that they had been to this building before, eight years ago, when the first World Trade Center attack led them to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, whose Jersey City mosque lies between the two buildings getting attention today. And the older investigators remember that the suspects that eventually got convicted for the first Trade Center case … lived in the building where these same eight men were celebrating the destruction that they saw from the roof. Calling this a hot address, the task force investigators ordered everyone detained.”

•Breitbart also reported that The Washington Post wrote (“Northern New Jersey Draws Probers’ Eyes,” BY Serge F. Kovaleski and Frderick Kunkle) on Sept. 18, 2001:

“In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.”

•And on Sept. 14 2001, a New York Post commentary by Fred Siegel said:

“Here in New York, it was easy to get angry listening to Egyptians, Palestinians and the Arabs of nearby Paterson, N.J., celebrate as they received word of the murderous attack in New York and Washington. But Mayor Giuliani (who has been tireless and magnificent in this crisis) rightly warned New Yorkers that it would be wrong to take their anger out on the city’s Arab and Muslim residents. Attacks on Arab-Americans in Paterson or elsewhere are utterly indefensible.”

According to Breibart: “Siegel told Daily Intelligencer that he first heard about the celebrations (and the nationalities of the perpetrators) on the radio, though he couldn’t remember which station. In addition to those news reports, he said, he believes that some Muslims did celebrate because he heard it from two sources: an acquaintance from Clifton, New Jersey, and an Arab-American professor with whom he corresponded.”

Outside U.S.—Palestinian Arabs

“In the wake of the September 11 atrocity, mass celebrations were held in Palestinian towns and cities. The incidents were far from isolated and sparsely attended as reported later by Palestinian apologists. Thousands of people took to the streets, chanting Allahu Akbar (God is Great), distributing candies to passerby, and shooting guns in the air to express their delight. To keep these disturbing scenes from world attention, PA [Palestinian Authority] security forces confiscated filmed footage and intimidated foreign journalists, news agencies, and television networks. In Gaza, Palestinian policemen detained cameramen who had filmed a Hamas demonstration in which Palestinians carried pictures of Osama bin Laden. In Nablus, foreign photojournalists were reportedly forced to remain confined in their hotels, guarded by armed Palestinians—both in uniform and in plain clothes—while crowds celebrated in the streets. A freelance photographer on assignment for Associated Press Television News, who had somehow managed to film the festivities, was summoned to the Nablus security office and warned that the material must not be aired. This was backed by death threats from Tanzim operatives. Ahmad Abdel Rahman, Arafat’s cabinet secretary, threatened Associated Press producers that the PA ‘cannot guarantee the life’ of the cameraman if the footage was broadcast.”

“In a terse protest to the Palestinian Authority, the Foreign Press Association, representing hundreds of mainstream journalists in Israel, expressed concern over:

‘The harassment of journalists by the Palestinian Authority as police forces and armed gunmen tried to prevent photo and video coverage of Tuesday’s rally in Nablus where hundreds of Palestinians celebrated the terror attacks in N.Y. and Washington. We strongly condemn the direct threats made against local videographers by local militia members and the attitude of Palestinian officials who made no effort to counter the threats, control the situation, or to guarantee the safety of the journalists and the freedom of the press (Efraim Karsh, Arafat’s War, Grove Press, 2003, pg. 224).’ “

Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group, celebrated its 28th anniversary on Dec. 14, 2015 by calling for more violence against Israel. The group’s charter calls for the destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews.

The Jerusalem Post reported that tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs took to the streets to march in celebration of Hamas’ anniversary (December 15, “On its anniversary, Hamas vows to ‘keep its weapons directed at the Israeli occupation only”).

The terror group has been labeled by some, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and current Obama administration “ISIS czar” Rob Malley, as a potential peace partner with the United States and Israel.

Hamas has praised recent terror attacks against Israeli’s and encouraged Palestinian Arabs to commit more.
In a statement released on its English language website, Hamas (the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement) affirmed that it “will never recognize the Israeli occupation, and confirms that Palestine form the Jordan River to the Mediterranean is an Arab, Islamic country.”

Reporting on the celebrations, The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) noted that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal called for “jihad, sacrifice, and blood” as the only way Gaza and West Bank Arabs can achieve their objective.

In a video clip translated by the Middle East Media Research (MEMRI), Meshaal stated:

“Weapons like Kalashnikovs or missiles are not at hand, but there are knives and cars with which to run over the enemies…By God, after the knives used by the people of the West Bank and Jerusalem, can anyone possibly have an excuse to abandon the path of jihad? Nobody can have such an excuse.”

The celebration of Hamas’ anniversary comes the same day as a survey showing widespread support amongst Palestinian Arabs for anti-Israeli terrorism and murder.

According to a new poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), a Ramallah-based non-profit, two-thirds of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank support the current wave of attacks against Israelis, and a “growing majority rejects the two-state solution.” Over one-third believe that current violence targeting Israelis, civilian and non-civilian alike, will lead to greater violence in the form of another intifada (uprising)—and two-thirds of those believe this would “serve Palestinian national interests in ways that negotiations could not.”

67percent of Palestinian Arabs polled supported the use of knives in attacks against Israelis, however 73percent expressed a preference against “young school girls” carrying out such acts of murder and attempted murder.

21percent of West Bank Palestinian Arabs, ruled by the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah movement that dominates the authority, expressed a “positive evaluation” of living conditions. 15percent of Gazans living under Hamas rule expressed similar satisfaction.

65percent of Palestinian Arabs polled want to see PA President Mahmoud Abbas resign, with a majority believing Abbas should, but likely won’t, end commitments to peace and security with Israel brought about by the 1990s Oslo process. According to the survey:

“If new presidential elections were held today and only two were nominated, [Hamas leader] Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas,” Abbas and Haniyeh would receive an almost equal percentage of support in the Gaza Strip. However, in the West Bank Haniyeh would win with 53percent compared to Abbas’ 37percent.

71percent of those polled believe that Hamas supports ongoing terror attacks, while 59percent believe Fatah does as well.

At its 28th anniversary, Hamas—and its commitment to genocidal violence—apparently remains popular with many Palestinian Arabs. A qualification: Both Hamas and, to a somewhat lesser extent Fatah, run authoritarian administrations. Respondents to public opinion surveys may feel some intimidation in answering pollsters.

The PSR poll can be found here.

The following letter to the editor was sent, but went unpublished:

“Dear Editor:

Washington Post coverage (for example, “Trump wants ‘total’ ban on Muslims entering U.S.,” December 8) continues to omit the history of a questionable source repeatedly cited: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

CAIR—founded as a Muslim Brotherhood spin-off—was an un-indicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding case in U.S. history, the 2009 Holy Land Foundation trial. As a result of evidence presented at that trial, FBI Assistant Director Richard Powers said the bureau was ceasing official cooperation with CAIR or its executives until it could resolve “whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas”—a U.S. listed terror group.

CAIR has criticized undercover operations by the FBI and others that seek to prevent terror attacks, but failed to specifically condemn terror groups Hamas or Hezbollah. At least five former staff or lay leaders from CAIR have been indicted, arrested or deported on weapons or terrorism-related charges.

The Post’s failure to identify CAIR is conspicuous given that it “identified” Frank Gaffney—a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense whose current organization, Center for Security Policy, includes former U.S. intelligence and defense professionals—as a “anti-Muslim extremist.” Why would The Post parrot the Southern Poverty Law Center’s reiteration of CAIR’s allegations against Gaffney, but fail to note CAIR’s own history?

The Washington Post made its reputation, in part, by exposing cover-ups like Watergate. Why cover up for CAIR?

Durns is Media Assistant for the Washington D.C. office of CAMERA—the 65,000 member Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America “

Saeb Erekat, a top Palestinian Authority (PA) official, refused to speak at an event sponsored by an Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz and the New Israel Fund (NIF) if an Israeli flag was on-stage.

Erekat has worked as the PA’s chief negotiator and has frequently been referred to by many journalists and policymakers as a “moderate.”

The PA official attended a joint Ha’aretz-NIF New York City conference on Dec. 13, 2015. As Arutz Sheva, a news organization associated with Israel’s settler movement, reported, Erekat “demanded that event organizers take the [Israeli] flag down as his price for gracing the event with his comments—and they complied, upon which Erekat agreed to make his prepared speech (December 13, “Ha’aretz removes Israeli flag to accommodate PA’s Erekat”).”

Other speakers and guests at the conference included the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Powers, commentator Peter Beinart, J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami and 1960-1970s rock star and anti-Israel boycott advocate Roger Waters, among others.

Arutz Sheva described Erekat’s speech as a “rehashing of the usual themes,” including laying sole blame for failure to achieve a two-state solution on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who Erekat claimed was trying to create an “apartheid state.” The PA chief negotiator lauded the recent European Union decision supporting a boycott against Israeli products made in areas held by Israel as a result of the 1967 and 1973 wars.

Erekat served as chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority when Israel and, in the first two cases the United States, offered a two-state solution in exchange for peace and recognition in 2000 at Camp David, 2001 at Taba and 2008 following the Annapolis Conference. Each offer was rejected without a counter proposal, by Palestinian Arab leadership, including Erekat.

In his remarks, Erekat rejected criticism that the PA was not fighting anti-Israel incitement, claiming, “It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between incitement and freedom of expression. We try to fix the mistakes we make.”

However, as CAMERA has documented, the PA—led by the Fatah movement—repeatedly has incited violence against Israelis, civilians and non-civilians alike, using everything from children’s sing alongs to poems and PA official broadcasts featuring PA officials, such as Jibril Rajoub, among others, who praise terror attacks as “courageous” (November 24, “Leaders Encourage Palestinian Children to Murder Jews, Use Sing-Alongs”).

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), an organization that monitors Arab media in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), Gaza and eastern Jerusalem, noted that the day before Erekat spoke Fatah posted a cartoon on its web site depicting both U.S. and Israeli soldiers murdering children. As CAMERA has noted, Fatah and the PA have repeatedly invoked this modern-day version of the medieval blood-libel, alleging that Jews murder innocent children (November 11, “Palestinian T.V. Favorite Accuses Israel of ‘Harvesting’ Terrorists’ Organs”).

PA rhetoric endorsing violence frequently correlates to terrorist attacks committed against Israelis. For example, on December 3, Mazen Hassan, a PA intelligence officer, attacked and wounded an Israeli civilian and soldier before he was shot and killed. Hassan’s family received a condolence visit from Erekat. This is not surprising as PA officials frequently pay respects to deceased terrorists.

However, it’s perhaps even less surprising given that Hassan was Erekat’s nephew—a fact not reported by Ha’aretz, which perhaps did not want to embarrass their future guest speaker (December 15, “Lost in Haaretz Translation: Saeb Erekat’s Relative Shot 2 Israelis”).

Nor is this the first time that Erekat has shown a willingness to lie publicly.

In 2002, Erekat claimed that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin with at least 500 dead. Eventually, PA officials admitted that 52 were killed, mostly combatants, in house-to-house fighting in Jenin that claimed 23 Israeli soldiers.

CAMERA has documented how Erekat has attempted to fabricate history by claiming—in contrast to the Qu’ran, historical consensus, and fellow PA officials—that Palestinian Arabs are the real descendants of the Canaanites who lived in the Jordan Valley and Judean and Samarian hill country before the Israelis (Feb. 19, 2014, “Saeb Erekat’s Fabrication Exposes ‘Palestinian Narrative’”).

Grant Rumley, an analyst of Jordanian and Palestinian politics at D.C.-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has written that Erekat may be a possible successor to PA President Mahmoud Abbas (September 3, “The Race to Replace Mahmoud Abbas”). If so, observers may want to remember a ‘peace negotiator’ who refuses to be seen with an Israeli flag and pays tribute to slain terrorists/relatives. It’s said a diplomat is a gentleman sent abroad to lie for his country. In Erekat’s case—he’s from Jericho—he need not travel far.

UN “Human Rights” Council spokeswoman Cécile Pouilly expressed grave concern “at the unrelenting violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Israel.” While she acknowledged the “unacceptable” wave of Palestinian stabbings, shootings and car rammings that kill and injure Israelis, she reserved her deepest condemnation for Israelis’ attempt to defend themselves, expressing “deep concern over reports of excessive use of force by Israeli forces” and calling for “prompt, independent and impartial investigations” of every instance where Israeli use of force resulted in the “death or injury” of Palestinian assailants. She also condemned Israel’s deterrent demolition of Palestinian terrorists’ houses.

There are numerous videos showing how terrorists charging at their intended victims with knives or other deadly weapons have been killed in self defense. The UNHRC’s equation of aggressive terrorism with self-defense and its condemnation of the latter provides yet another example of the virulent bias of this UN body and explains why the UNHRC has rendered itself meaningless.

In the past, CAMERA and others have noted how Palestinian leaders and social media have falsely claimed that Palestinians killed as they were carrying out terror attacks were innocent, and that the purported Palestinian victims were killed in cold blood. As previously noted here, “It is precisely the unfounded claims of Palestinian perpetrators’ innocence and false charges of ‘extrajudicial killings’ which fuel additional Palestinian attacks.”

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat is the latest to pull this deadly trick, and yesterday he found a helping hand at Haaretz‘s English print edition. The Dec. 14 page-one article by Barak Ravid (“Obama to HaaretzQ conference: Peace a must for Israel to remain a Jewish state”) referred to Erekat’s nephew, who had carried out a terror attack on Dec. 3, as follows: “Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, whose 37-year-old nephrew [sic] killed [sic] last week at the Hizme checkpoint . . . “

The print edition article does not include the critical information that Erekat’s nephew carried out a shooting attack on Dec. 3, moderately injuring an Israeli Arab man and lightly hurting a soldier. It was then that Israeli forces shot him dead.

The English print edition’s omission is all the more glaring in light of the fact that Ravid’s original article in the Hebrew print edition appropriately includes the following (CAMERA’s translation):

Erekat did not point out that his nephew — Mazen Erekat, an officer in the Palestinian security forces, was shot after he carried out a shooting attack in which he injured two Israelis.

Also, it should be noted that Allison Kaplan Sommer’s online article covering Erekat’s speech responsibly noted that the negotiator’s nephew carried out a terror attack, although Erekat himself ignored that fact. She wrote:

Seemingly choked up, Erekat told his audience that his nephew was shot and killed earlier this month at a West Bank checkpoint, apparently a reference to Mazen Aribeh, who was killed by Israeli security forces after shooting and wounding two Israelis at the Hizmeh checkpoint north of Jerusalem.

Yesterday’s English print edition, which omitted critical information about a Palestinian attack which had appeared in the Hebrew print edition, is the latest instance of “Haaretz, Lost in Translation,” a phenomenon in which Haaretz‘s English edition omits or downplays instances of Palestinian violence or other misdeeds noted in the Hebrew edition, or includes erroneous information about Israel that did not appear in Hebrew.

CAMERA calls on editors to publish a clarification in the print edition. Stay tuned for an update.

Update: 5:13 am EST: Barak Ravid Responds

Twitter user Jed Galilee asked Haaretz reporter Barak Ravid, whose story was mangled in the English edition, “Barak, how does this happen? Is there an English censor?” (Hebrew tweets translation by CAMERA.)

Ravid responded: “No censor. I dictated this article by telephone to the Hebrew editors and they didn’t pass on this information to the English desk.”

What happens when Pixar’s “Cars” meet a Haaretz news story about a Palestinian attack? Anthropomorphic vehicles ram soldiers and flee the scene.

Haaretz‘s page-one article yesterday (“Four soldiers wounded in car-ramming”) begins: “Four soldiers were wounded when a car deliberately drove into them at the Beit Arye junction in the West Bank yesterday afternoon.”

It’s very doubtful that the car made a deliberate decision to drive into the soldiers. In fact, it’s probably safe to say that the vehicle did not make any decision of any kind.

Nevertheless, further assigning agency to the personified attacking vehicle, the article also states:

The car crashed into a military vehicle after hitting the soldiers, wounding its driver.

The soldiers were standing near the military vehicle when a speeding car rammed three of them. It then crashed into the vehicle and wounded its driver as well.

The ramming car fled the scene, but it was later found. . .

That’s one reckless ramming car, fleeing the scene after deliberately driving into soldiers. Fortunately, though, the belligerent, though not particularly stealthy, automotive outlaw was no match for Israeli authorities which successfully located the fugitive.

The online version of the article was only marginally better. It did not mention a “car deliberately driving into soldiers,” but it did state that the car escaped the scene.

See also “Wave of Palestinian Violence Accompanied by Spate of Bad Writing“

Dec. 16 Update: Anthropomorphic Car in English Edition Only

An examination of the original Hebrew version of the same article by Gili Cohen indicates that the anthropomorphic car is another example of “Haaretz, Lost in Translation,” in which reports in the English edition downplay or omit Palestinian violence or other misdeeds.

The Hebrew article clearly reports (CAMERA’s translation):

Four soldiers were injured yesterday in a ramming attack at the Beit Arye junction in the West Bank. One is in moderate condition, and the other three are lightly injured.

The driver [literally, the rammer] fled the scene, but later security forces located the vehicle that he apparently drove. . .

Alon Ben-Meir, Senior Fellow and professor of international relations and Middle East studies at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs, published a Huffington Post opinion piece finding Israel’s presence in the West Bank to be a transgression of the principles of four moral theories. His summations of Israel’s moral violations are weakly constructed and equivocal. He fails to back up with fact the harsh judgments he passes on the Jewish state and instead seems to mold the theories to uphold a finding he’s predetermined. Of course, he completely ignores the fact that Israel captured this territory in a defensive war making it disputed and not occupied. Further, Israel has repeatedly made offers of statehood on this land to the Palestinian Arab leadership, which they admittedly rejected.

Ben-Meir states that Israel treats Palestinians as “objects rather than persons who can rationally consent to the way they are being treated. Israel is coercing the Palestinians physically and psychologically by denying them human rights, through, for example, administrative detention, night raids, and expulsion, thereby robbing them of their dignity and denying them their autonomy.”

Of course, Ben-Meir does not note that Israeli Jews are also subject to administrative detention. The summer saw the administrative detention of three Israeli Jews on for potentially possessing information about certain arson attacks. He may take issue with the broad concept of administrative detention, but to present Israel as only exercising that approach toward Palestinians is false. The author claims Palestinian Arabs have been psychologically harmed by the Israeli “occupation” while ignoring the well-documented trauma of Israelis who live under constant threat of rocket attacks.

Incredibly, Ben-Meir claims that “Israel is making an exception of itself,” exempting itself “from moral and political norms that the rest of the international community recognizes.” In truth, Israel is constantly made “an exception” by the international community, held to a double standard applied to no other country. Further, he discounts the fact that no other country lives under the conditions in which Israel exists; its security situation has no comparison, as no other democracy faces direct threat of annihilation by its neighbors. Faced with lesser national security threats, other countries have acted with far less restraint than Israel.

Ben-Meir rewrites history, making Israel the culpable party in the repeated disintegration of peace talks and moves toward a two-state solution. To Ben-Meir, it Israel’s move to “usurp Palestinian land,” and not the actions of the Palestinian leaders, that destroyed UN Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords.

He states that Israel cannot claim to be acting in the moral interest even of its own, recognized citizens. Ben-Meir’s most illogical conclusion is that Israel’s security measures, which impinge on Palestinian rights, are “in fact undermining the security of the state, as is evident from the repeated bloody clashes.” With extraordinary and brazen victim-blaming, Ben-Meir surmises that the Israelis inability to stamp out Islamic terror is somehow its own fault.

The Israeli citizenry is then taken to task, with “the occupation” being named the cause of the Israeli people “hardening their hearts,” a nonsense statement crafted to appeal to the emotional response of Ben-Meir’s readership. Supposedly, Israelis are raising generations who know nothing of moral substance and character as they “continue to commit transgressions against the Palestinians without any sense of moral culpability.” The evidence that exists to the contrary is, of course, wholly ignored.

Many facts undermine Ben-Meir’s arguments, so he ignores them. But one central fact cannot be ignored: the threats to Israel and the violence perpetrated upon Israelis, as well as Jewish residents of pre-1948 Palestine, precede “the occupation”. How then is it possible that “the occupation” is the cause of these threats and violence?

– Rachel Frommer, CAMERA Intern

Iranian proxies have threatened to attack United States troops if the U.S. arms Kurdish Peshmerga forces fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria—although you may not have seen it reported in major U.S. print news outlets.

On Dec. 9, 2015 the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee passed bipartisan legislation that would authorize the military to arm and train Kurdish forces fighting ISIS.

Buried in the middle of an article on that legislation, The Hill (Dec. 10, “House panel votes to directly arm Kurdish forces against ISIS”) briefly notes the Iranian threats:

“Powerful Iran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq also oppose the U.S. directly arming the Kurds or the Sunnis, who are from a different Islamic sect, since it could also undermine their influence in Iraq. They have threatened to attack U.S. forces in Iraq in response to U.S. legislation that would grant those groups more autonomy.”

Current U.S. law requires all American military assistance to the Kurds to go through the central government in Baghdad, controlled by Shiites—many of whom have close ties to, and are even funded by Tehran.

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-Ca) told those at the committee hearing that “Kurdish forces in northern Iraq have been some of our closest partners in the fight against the ISIS.” Royce said the newly-passed legislation will remove “roadblocks” that have delayed providing Peshmerga with training and weapons, including anti-tank missiles, armored vehicles and long-range artillery. Kurds are currently using light weapons dating back to at least Saddam Hussein’s rule—with some World War II-era weaponry.

The Hill reports the bill “would authorize President Obama to provide equipment and training directly to Iraqi Kurds for three years, urges the president to continue consulting with the Iraqi government and requires that the weapons be used to meet the shared goal with the U.S. of defeating ISIS.”

This is not the first time that Iranian proxies have threatened to harm the United States in the event it arms Kurds fighting ISIS.

In April 2015, a proposed bill in the House Armed Services Committee that would have directly armed Peshmerga forces was opposed by the Obama administration, Shiite leaders in the Iraqi government, and Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr is the head of the Mahdi Army militia responsible for killing and wounding numerous U.S. and coalition troops following the 2003 Second Iraq War. He has received extensive funding and material support from Tehran.

At the time, The Associated Press noted al-Sadr wrote on his website that “In the event of approving this bill by the U.S. Congress, we will find ourselves obliged to unfreeze the military wing and start targeting the American interests in Iraq—even abroad, which is doable (Breitbart, April 30, 2015, “Shiite Cleric Threatens U.S. Over GOP Proposal to Arm Kurds, Sunnis in Iraq”).”

As Politico reported in March 2015: “The allegiances of many Iraqi Shiite fighters are no secret. Some openly display posters of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei….the concern is that those fighters, under the direction of Suleimani [Qassem Suleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force], may again train their sights on American troops (March 25, 2015, “Iran might attack American troops in Iraq, U.S. officials fear”).”

Yet, fast forward more than half a year and according to a Lexis-Nexis search, not a single major U.S. print outlet reported that Iran is—through its proxies—threatening American troops if Washington arms an ally in the fight against the Islamic State.

Where’s the coverage?